Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That's probably more easily said than done --- in particular, I don't >> understand what the committed state after the first transaction would >> look like.
> I think you build a whole new index named something like ".temp-reindex" and > then as the last step of the second transaction delete the old idnex and > rename the new index. That would require getting exclusive lock on the table. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster